Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Overview

  • The petitioner was charged with violating Sections 80, 84, 86, and 87 of the Act, 1963, Rules 144 and 145 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • During the investigation, the Investigating Officer issued a notice dated January 13 under Section 41-A of the CrPC, summoning the petitioner to appear before him for questioning.
  • The petitioner had not appeared because he feared that if he does, he would be detained.
  • Petitioner applied for bail, which was denied by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. As a result, the petitioner approached the High Court for anticipatory bail.

Submissions made by the petitioner

  • By using Section 41(A) provisions, the petitioner's counsel claims that if a police officer believes the petitioner should be arrested, he must record the reasons.
  • He also highlighted Section 41-A (4), which states that if the petitioner has not gotten any orders from the competent Court and has failed to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Investigating Officer may arrest him for the offences listed in the notice.

Prosecution’s side

  • It was argued that because the petitioner's arrest was not necessary under 41(1), the Investigating Officer had issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. requesting the petitioner to appear before him for an investigation.
  • As a result, there is no apprehension of being arrested. The Sessions Court appropriately dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail petition based on the judgment in Jerry Paul Vs. The state of Karnataka.
  • Hence, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

Court’s Order

  • According to the Bench, The insertion of Section 41A Cr. P.C, which refers to the issuance of a "Notice of Appearance," is in line with people's rights to life and liberty. It aims to minimize the number of arrests, thereby decongesting India's congested jails.
  • Furthermore, the court found that Section 41A of the CrPC prevents an arrest from taking place until sufficient evidence is acquired to produce or transfer the accused to the custody of the court.
  • As a result, raising the matter of the maintainability of an application during the pendency of a notice issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or during compliance with the requirements of such notice, is utterly improper and unjustified.
  • As a result, the Court granted the Anticipatory Bail Application, subject to a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and one surety bond of the same amount, if the Investigating Officer was satisfied.

What are your views on this? Share in the comment section below!

"Loved reading this piece by srishti jain?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  37  Report



Comments
img